Christian-History.org does not receive any personally identifiable information from the search bar below.
I explain on the Roman Catholicism page why I specifically address the Roman Catholic Church but not any other. Here, though, I provide a more thorough explanation in answer to a an email I received.
Here's the email:
I was wondering why don't you examine some other Christian faiths other than Roman Catholicism, such as the other Rites of the Catholic Church, Methodist, Baptist, etc? Since you don't examine other denominations, it seems to me (and to others)that you do have a bias against the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. Surely you will admit that other denominations have traditions that are not Biblical? And surely you will admit that all other denominations have to thank the Catholic Church (no matter what rite it is) for the rich history and keeping the faith all those years when it was the ONLY church in existence?
First, as I explain in my page on Roman Catholicism, I don't address groups like the Baptists or other Protestant denominations because they don't claim to be the only true church.
If you'll notice, I don't address Roman Catholic doctrines, except in passing. (For example, indulgences came up as a result of their role in the Reformation. Purgatory is covered, relatively positively, because it leads into the early Christian explanation of Hades.) I address only their claim to hold the true faith handed down from the apostles—well, not even the apostles, just Peter—and their claim that the bishop of Rome was recognized as a pope in pre-Nicene Christianity.
This is why I'm confused about your mention of other Catholic rites. I'm assuming you're not talking about the Eastern Orthodox Churches. I don't mention them because most of my arguments against RCC claims apply to their claims as well.
Why would I bring up other Catholic rites beside the Latin? My concern is the Roman Catholic Church's claim that the pope is the head of all Christendom. Do any Catholic rites deny that? If they do, then I have no reason to address them on the site. If they agree with papal claims, then I have already addressed them on the site. I never specifically mention the Latin rite because I don't know about or care about the benefits or lack of benefits of the various liturgies. Our church has seen no reason to take up any liturgy.
Finally, although I do not directly address the Baptists, Presbyterians, Assemblies of God, and other evangelicals by name, I most certainly address their doctrines, and I address them a lot more than I address RCC doctrines. On my site, you'll find at least four pages on faith only, and you'll find some 20 pages or more on other pet evangelical doctrines. (See my teachings page.)
When I address doctrines I don't address churches directly. However, the RCC is a church of around 2 billion members that claims to the be the only true descendants of the apostles. I address that one claim and I name the gigantic denomination that makes that claim, the Roman Catholic Church.
I hope that's clear.
This section addresses this part of the writer's question:
And surely you will admit that all other denominations have to thank the Catholic Church (no matter what rite it is) for the rich history and keeping the faith all those years when it was the ONLY church in existence?
By the way, I do not thank the RCC for "keeping" the faith when it was the only organization around. It was the only church, sort of, because it persecuted any other church that rose up, and it did not keep the faith, it lost it—purposely. The reason the Protestants are so "Bible only" is because the RCC dropped the faith so badly that it was impossible to recover it from them.
Today, we are seeing a revival of reading the earliest church fathers because believers are starting to realize that their writings provide a picture of the faith back before the Roman Catholic Church changed it and thus hid it from the western world.
My newest book, Rome's Audacious Claim, was released December 1. See synopsis and reviews on Amazon.